"With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?

[John V]

Hard to say, as we still don't have definitions of good people and evil people.

[sagersager1]

I thought it'd be common sense to assume that "loving them" meant supporting the social issues such as gay marriage and simply not hating them right off the bat because of your religion...

The point still applies. There are secular arguments against gay marriage.

Oh? I'd like to hear them, the only arguments I have ever heard were from the religious point of view.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The point still applies. There are secular arguments against gay marriage.

... that are just as fallacious as religiously-based bigotry against them.

---

Hard to say, as we still don't have definitions of good people and evil people.

Are you saying you don't know the difference?

[John V]

Are you saying you don't know the difference?

I do, but my definitions are based at least in part on what the person does. So, it's nonsensical to discuss a good person who does truly evil things. If I found out that the people who behead others on the internet were also good family men and gave to charity, I'd still consider them evil people, rather than good people doing evil things due to religion, or politics, or whatever.

[Minimalist]

The same thread is going on at TTA. I posted this yesterday.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal





Weinberg was not the first to come up with the concept.

Pascal died in 1662 so he had the Wars of the Reformation for a panoply.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you saying you don't know the difference?

I do, but my definitions are based at least in part on what the person does. So, it's nonsensical to discuss a good person who does truly evil things. If I found out that the people who behead others on the internet were also good family men and gave to charity, I'd still consider them evil people, rather than good people doing evil things due to religion, or politics, or whatever.

I think the point that Weinberg was trying to make is that you take someone who normally does good things and expose him to religion (and probably of some extremist variety) and you'll see him start to do bad things. I don't think he means that the person doing bad things is still a good person.

I do agree with you, folks ought to be judged good or evil based on their actions, not their words.

[John V]

I think the point that Weinberg was trying to make is that you take someone who normally does good things and expose him to religion (and probably of some extremist variety) and you'll see him start to do bad things. I don't think he means that the person doing bad things is still a good person.

Maybe that's what he meant. Maybe not. Again, it sounds catchy but doesn't hold up well to examination.

But, if that's what he meant, then his point would be more accurately worded as:

Some people are good.
Some people are evil.
Only religion will change a good person to an evil person.

Which I think is obviously incorrect. All sorts of things can change a person from good to evil - even love.

[DeistPaladin]

The point still applies. There are secular arguments against gay marriage.

...just no good ones.

[Cyberman]

Zealotry is the culprit. It takes a zealot -- Christian, Communist, Muslim, whatever -- it takes a zealot to justify evil with ideology.

Indeed, however the zealots feed off the popular support of the grassroots majority. Take away the implicit blessing that zealotry requires and the religious maniacs become ordinary everyday maniacs.

[Minimalist]

No. It is the zealots ability to use religion to inflame the masses that is the problem.